Atlanta-area antigay activist D.L. Foster has been temporarily prohibited from commenting at XGW.
His privileges will be restored when:
- he permits civil discussion at his own websites,
- he demonstrates a capacity for responsible, decent and mature conduct.
- he listens actively to those whom he engages at XGW and elsewhere,
- he repents of his sins,
and refrains from further sinagainst gay people, and - he refrains from strawman argumentation
Michael, I can appreciate that.
There are other black clergy, besides Foster who were extraordinarily nasty to me.
I think they expected me to follow their line, and were quite plain in their harsh judgement of me.
They were all men.
I don’t know if that’s a coincidence, but I don’t really try to change their minds about gay people.
I pretty much just put some facts out there and see how they react.
And inevitably a common reaction is exposed.
Condescencion, derision-and a strong streak of misogyny.
Only a few responded strangely and not maturely, Foster being one of those.
The overall spirit of our exchanges was not being able to have a match of intellect.
To really be able to have the discussion about gay equality in historical context.
And gay people’s lives having strong similarities in Jim Crow social stigma.
Strong and defined in the same way, regardless that the gay stigma isn’t the same as the color stigma. But sexuality was still the basis for Jim Crow, NOT color.
The facts are there. The data to back it up is there and I gave references.
Our country has a responsibility to this history and making up it’s mind about the good in gay people and the potential for much of merit to offer society.
The majority in this country at one time had to wrestle with understanding that the worst kind of white man had greater freedom and protection than his black better.
Now the understanding has come down to the worst kind of heterosexual has greater access and protection than his gay better.
When the better person of our society doesn’t have what the Constituion and Bill of Rights obligates this country to give, than that must be corrected.
To discuss that with Foster was impossible.
Especially considering his claims to care about history.
He was resistant to learning historical facts, as much as he looked to show contempt for my cultural heritage.
But you saw that and acted accordingly.
I would have had more respect for his conversion and life he’s leading now, if he didn’t sound so much like a segregationist.
And he showed the same disrespect and contempt for me that said segregationists did for ‘nigger lovers’.
Truthfully, I’d rather be the equivalent of a nigger lover, than a Dixiecrat.
Especially because of my life as a woman of color.
What does that say about the character of Foster in the end?
One of Rev. Foster’s most endearing qualities is his excessive use of the mallet on his own website. The most interesting reading over there is the comparison with what’s currently on the website with what the Google cache displays.
What these guys aren’t saying (cf. Throckmorton on Brokeback) swears.
I’ve been having an interesting go-round over there regarding an extremely distressing first-person account recently published at New Oxford Review.
It’s interesting to post restrained, reasonable responses and watch him try his very best to find something to cavil and carp at.
Remarkably similar to recent experiences I’ve had with a couple of bloggers who argue that the Muslim response to the Danish cartoons is understandable and appropriate (!).
I hate to be the one to defend a putz like DL… and I apologize for being “personal” but it’s just so hard not to be with someone like him.. but is it our communities’ message that we require someone to be “civil” at -his- blog, to listen “compassionately” at all websties including his own, and to “repent of his sins?”
I’m not sure its our place to do that — that being people who believe in the right to free expression, we have any kind of moral authority to ban anyone for things they do anywhere else than right here.
What’s ironic is that this blog being Mike’s, he does have the right to impose any standards he wants, on any posters he wants. So in one sense, what he wrote was acceptable. To me though, in larger, meta-sense, I don’t see how it’s right to require another to change their entire viewpoint, actions and even thoughts wherever they happen to express them, because I don’t like them and, moreover, find them morally vile.
In short, banning him for being a raving jerk when he’s here is one thing, but doing it for being the same jerk wherever else he goes? That is uncomfortably close to the whole Mohammed Cartoon Craziness going on right now.
Jody said:
That is uncomfortably close to the whole Mohammed Cartoon Craziness going on right now.
I understand your point of view, and to some extent I agree, but please, let’s keep our perspective. Banning a bully from posting on a blog is not even in the same universe with such actions as we are seeing in response to that cartoon.
DL was able to abuse this blog because he enjoyed a courtesy that he did not extend to those who posted on his own. I don’t remember a single post where he treated others civilly, and certainly not as he wanted to be treated. I tend to think that is sufficient to ban him without involving what he does at his own blog. Then again, I can see how Mike might have become fed up with the whole thing as well. DL is just such an unpleasant individual that it’s hard to find any redeeming qualities to acknowledge.
David
DL has so frequently broken the rule at the heart of sincere debate (an honest one for one trade of questions and answers) I’m a bit relieved I won’t be seeing here his attempts to elevate himself by annoying and insulting GLBTs.
David, I didn’t mean to imply that banning DL from here for being abusive was the same thing as the cartoon thing. Banning him here, for abuse, is perfectly valid.
But stating reasons for banning DL here to include his actions elsewhere, as well as demanding that he change those behaviors, as well as undergoing some sort of spiritual change, is what bothers me. I find that to be something that we, in the West, with our Liberal tradition, don’t do. Freedom means the freedom to be an abusive ass — just not in my house.
I really don’t care whether DL is civil on his own site. But Mike and others have been very careful to make this a site where differing views can be expressed within the rules of civility. He’s often rebuked people with whom he may agree, simply because they were rude, attacking personally, or making baseless claims.
DL does not consider that he has to play by the rules of civil discourse. And Mike has been far accepting of DL’s rudeness than he has been of any of the others of us. And rightly so.
Mike is very welcoming of dissent, and most anti-gay ex-gay activists (such as Alan Chambers) are polite and civil when they post here (or within the realm of socially acceptable). DL was not.
So until DL can behave properly here, I agree that he should not post here.
But this will raise a problem for DL. If he can’t show up here taunting us and trying to get attention for his site, he’ll have nothing to write about. Basically his rants are boring and he doesn’t allow dissent on his site so there’s really no reason to go there (I very seldom do unless linked from here). It does not seem to me (though I may be wrong) that he has much following – he’s a bit too inclined to think his detractors are demonic and that he’s personally chosen by God for many rational Christians to get much from there.
If he isn’t able to draw readers from here to there, he becomes a shrill voice shouting into an empty space. I’m not sure how his sense of self-worth will be able to handle it.
I’ll always remember his meeps.
DL consistently shows his truly hypocritical colors. Good for you for no longer giving him space and relevance.
Your “temporary” ban, if you stick to your set of rules, will invariably last forever.
Rather sad actually.
The man is a maniac.Personally we prefer that he is not banned. We will not repond to his insane rantings, but we do wish to have them held up for others to witness.Give him enough rope, and he’ll hang himself.Meep Meep. Creek. Clunk.
grantdale said:
Personally we prefer that he is not banned. We will not repond to his insane rantings, but we do wish to have them held up for others to witness.
I understand your position but I think letting him do that at XGW specifically would just tend to pollute the site. And for some reason, a lot of us were all too eager to respond to his rants instead of ignoring him – ignoring or banning are the only ways I know of to deal with a troll. Rest assured, there is no dearth of DL quotes to reference in order to prove what he is. There are plenty of places that will let him put his awful attitude on display, but there are few places like XGW.
David
Yeah, you are right David.(Hey, we’re allowed to be schizo… there’s two of us. No really, there are TWO of us in this relationship. And we talk to each other. Contrary to DL’s belief.)The only prob. is that in every other forum he is either severely edited back to Planet Earth by someone else, or he deletes like crazy on his own forums.”Meep Meep” was never ever going to occur, and be preserved for all times sake, anywhere but here.What I’d really like is a response from PFOX about DL’s behaviour… DL is, afterall, their President or Supreme Leader or something.
What I’d really like is a response from PFOX about DL’s behaviour… DL is, afterall, their President or Supreme Leader or something.
You and me both! I don’t have a lot of respect for PFOX but I was floored to find out that they so strongly associated with DL. That’s just nuts.
Would someone please tell me, was there some secret meaning to “meep meep” that I missed? I feel like no one let me in on the secret password to the club 😉
David
Oh sorry David. It’s no secret.I’ll go find it. (Hang on though, I’m fielding work too… at 2.16AM!!!)
Here you go David… DL meep meepsIt followed a vile vomit on his own site, with racist and very personal questioning about Regan who posts here at XGW.As you can guess as you read, he made little sense to anyone. Thankfully, otherwise we’d have started questioning our own grip on reality!
grantdale said:
As you can guess as you read, he made little sense to anyone.
Thanks for the link – made no sense to me either thank goodness 🙂 Though I could have done without that little trip through memory lane with DL, it did erase any doubt I may have had about his being banned.
David
David, you may “enjoy” this as well.DL’s contribution makes even less sense.Actually, it’s not even coherent.
Hey grantdale, if your belly is a god, can I worship it?
Yes, of course Boo.BTW: The Church expects tithing. 10% min.
What sort of sacrifices does it prefer?
Donuts I would assume, or perhaps some of my famous lemon-cheese-fried chicken.
Heresy. Everyone knows that sacrifices must be bleeding creatures, for as it is written in the Book of grantdale’s Stomach, “And the Stomach was surrounded by the flesh of its flesh, and the blood of its blood.”
I shall burn your blasphemy from this land, apostate.
Not after you get a taste of my famous lemon-cheese-fried chicken you won’t.